Sableagle wrote:All ducks being birds does not mean that all birds are ducks, therefore does not mean that non-ducks are necessarily non-birds.

Trump is a racist. Therefore all of Trumps voters are racist because they voted for Trump.

A more general version would be.XXXX (is/is not) something, therefore all members of XXXX supporters (are/are not) the same thing.

Is their something more to Gmalivuk's assertion than the first line? If there isn't I'm trying to understand why these aren't functionally identical. I know that Gmalivuk believes morally if you support a racist than you become a racist. If it is an observation about something he believes in so be it. It's his business. But just because he believes it doesn't mean it is a true statement.

ucim, if you understand how culture can be a proxy for race, then it sounds like you're not disagreeing with Zamfir or myself. That's the primary contention we're making, here: "Cultural" criticism can sometimes be an attack on a racial identity in a poorly fashioned disguise, and it's fair to call those criticisms racist.

Zamfir goes on to explain that they're comfortable with the possibility that this policy might mislabel some extremely rare "cultural bigots" as racist because 1) They probably don't exist, and 2) Outside of carefully worded clarifications to ensure they're actually distinguishing between race and culture, they're mostly indistinguishable from racists anyway.

The Great Hippo wrote:ucim, if you understand how culture can be a proxy for race, then it sounds like you're not disagreeing with Zamfir or myself.

Culture can be a proxy for race. But it isn't always, and calling somebody racist (rather than the correct term) is like calling sparkling wine Champagne rather than Cava, Prosecco, or cheap fizzy white excuse-for-wine (depending on what you're drinking). And if it's good fizzy white wine, then its mojo deserves to be correctly assigned. "Champagne" does not mean "good fizzy white wine".

Calling somebody racist is an ad hominum attack. It might be a true ad hominum attack, but it still is one. But it could also be a false ad hominum attack, where the word is merely used to give emotional punch to "you're a bad person for overgeneralizing somebody's traits". Using the word incorrectly actually overgeneralizes somebody's traits. Is it racist to use the label "racist" just for its emotional impact, when it's not accurate?

Gay bashers are not racists for being bigoted against gays. That doesn't make them not horrible, but "racist" is not a synonym for "horrible person".

Words are important. They mean things.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

ucim wrote:Culture can be a proxy for race. But it isn't always, and calling somebody racist (rather than the correct term) is like calling sparkling wine Champagne rather than Cava, Prosecco, or cheap fizzy white excuse-for-wine (depending on what you're drinking).

So what *is* the correct term for someone who uses culture as a proxy for race to talk about "degenerate races"? What set of words would make you happy, here? Would you prefer to describe them as "cultural bigots"?

I think that's very silly, but I'm trying to get a sense of where you stand, here. It sounds like you don't want us using "racist" as a term unless someone carefully qualifies that they're talking about race? Do you think racists are going to be polite enough to do us that courtesy?

ucim wrote:Calling somebody racist is an ad hominum attack. It might be a true ad hominum attack, but it still is one. But it could also be a false ad hominum attack, where the word is merely used to give emotional punch to "you're a bad person for overgeneralizing somebody's traits". Using the word incorrectly actually overgeneralizes somebody's traits. Is it racist to use the label "racist" just for its emotional impact, when it's not accurate?

As an aside, I think you're misusing ad hominem; also, while I agree that using "racist" to make people feel bad is probably counter-productive, I don't think this is a case of that.

I think this is more a case of racist ideas not being quite as popular as they once were, so people dress them up a little to make them sound "less" racist -- despite the fact that they're still just as racist.

Sableagle wrote:All ducks being birds does not mean that all birds are ducks, therefore does not mean that non-ducks are necessarily non-birds.

Trump is a racist. Therefore all of Trumps voters are racist because they voted for Trump.

A more general version would be.XXXX (is/is not) something, therefore all members of XXXX supporters (are/are not) the same thing.

The more general version is obviously false. Trump is male, but not all the people who voted for Trump are male. Trump is rich, but not all the people who voted for Trump are rich. Trump said he wanted to date his daughter, but not all the people who voted for Trump want to date their (or his) daughters.

morriswalters wrote:I know that Gmalivuk believes morally if you support a racist than you become a racist.

There's no "becoming" anything. I contend that if you support someone who largely based his campaign on racism, then you're at least a bit racist. Your failure of logic is thinking this somehow implies that if instead you support someone who didn't base her campaign on racism, then you're not a bit racist. Trump's campaign drove away people who have a problem with overt racism, but it didn't attract everyone who has no problem with overt racism.

(To use an example I hope even CorruptUser won't complain about, everyone (yes I do mean everyone) who supported the Nazi Final Solution was anti-Semitic, but not all anti-Semites supported the Final Solution. Or to put it a different way, Nazi anti-Semitism drove away everyone in the world who wasn't anti-Semitic, but it didn't attract everyone in the world who was anti-Semitic.)

---

Edit:In addition to your logic failure of apparently not understanding that a conditional statement doesn't imply its converse, you're leaving out a whole lot in your "therefore" paraphrase of my position. It's not simply that voting for someone who happens to be racist means you're racist. It's that voting for someone who so blatantly campaigned on a platform of racist fearmongering means you're racist.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

gmalivuk wrote:If a vote for Trump implies someone is racist, that just means it's a sufficient condition. No one is argruing that it's a necessary condition.

I'm going to concede the point on necessary and sufficient. However the second point is a question, not logic. How do the two positions differ? If Trump voters are racists because Trump is a racist. Then why can't we infer that Clinton voters aren't because she isn't?

If we assume that all free-climbers have full use of both arms, can we therefore assume that anyone who doesn't do free-climbing must not have full use of both arms? If we assume that every soldier has better than 20/200 uncorrected vision, can we assume that all civilians are legally blind? If we assume that everybody in the doctor's waiting room is sick, can we assume everybody outside it is healthy?

All ducks being birds does not mean that all birds are ducks, therefore does not mean that non-ducks are necessarily non-birds.

Trump is a racist. Therefore all of Trumps voters are racist because they voted for Trump.

A more general version would be.XXXX (is/is not) something, therefore all members of XXXX supporters (are/are not) the same thing.

Is their something more to Gmalivuk's assertion than the first line? If there isn't I'm trying to understand why these aren't functionally identical. I know that Gmalivuk believes morally if you support a racist than you become a racist. If it is an observation about something he believes in so be it. It's his business. But just because he believes it doesn't mean it is a true statement.

Rear-wheel-drive cars are harder to recover from broadside skids that front-wheel-drive cars. The reason they're popular with boy racers is that acceleration throws the weight of the car back onto its rear axle, reducing friction under the front wheels and increasing friction under the rear wheels, so a front-wheel-drive car spins its wheels while a rear-wheel-drive car keep accelerating hard. In other words, they're a straight-line-quarter-mile gimmick, not a real driver's preferred design.

...

What? You're changing the subject. Why shouldn't I?

...

An eider is a bird. Therefore all eaters of eiders are bird-eaters because they ate eiders.

You went from there to "That means anyone who's never eaten an eider has never eaten a bird," completely ignoring the existence of mallards, pigeons, pheasant, chickens and turkeys.

"Trump voters" are a subset of "racists." That's not the same thing as '"Trump voter" and "racist" are exactly the same.'

Assume all Christians are monotheists. Can we assume Jews and Muslims are polytheists?Assume everyone with a workplace pension is employed. Can we assume everyone without a workplace pension is unemployed?Assume everyone with at least three pet dogs likes dogs. Can we assume everyone who doesn't have a pet dog at all hates dogs?Assume everyone who has a handgun knows how to use it. Can we assume everyone who doesn't own a handgun has no clue how to use one?

morriswalters wrote:

gmalivuk wrote:If a vote for Trump implies someone is racist, that just means it's a sufficient condition. No one is argruing that it's a necessary condition.

I'm going to concede the point on necessary and sufficient. However the second point is a question, not logic. How do the two positions differ? If Trump voters are racists because Trump is a racist. Then why can't we infer that Clinton voters aren't because she isn't?

The Great Hippo wrote:So what *is* the correct term for someone who uses culture as a proxy for race to talk about "degenerate races"?

Bigot. (And where did the term "degenerate races" come from?)*

The Great Hippo wrote:It sounds like you don't want us using "racist" as a term unless someone carefully qualifies that they're talking about race?

Yes, for two reasons. First is that it's simply the wrong word, and that impedes communication and pollutes the dictionary. Second and most important is that the reason people (initially) use the word is to disingenuously scoop up its mojo. This is a deliberate attempt to substitute angry chest-beating and emotional appeal for reasoned discussion and analysis.

In the case of Trump, the appeal is not racism. He opposes Mexicans not because Mexicans are an inferior race, but because they are (supposedly) taking our jobs. It's not about being Mexican. Sure he will make racist-like comments (such as the "getting a fair trial" thing) to resonate with the beer-belly crowd (see what I did just there?) but the motivating thing he has against Mexicans is jobs. (One may agree or disagree, but it's important to address the actual thing one is agreeing or disagreeing with).

The thing he rails on about Muslims is also not due to the "inherent inferiority" of Muslims. It's drawing on anger stemming from the 2001 WTC attack and its fallout. It's standard enemy-creation and an us-vs-them rallying cry. And Muslims are not a race; he's not against the bloodline. He positions himself as against the religion. He's using one group to stand in for the other because there's a big overlap, and that obfuscates the fact that the problem isn't the religion itself but the extremist stand some take (Catholics can be extremist too, but that's "us" so it doesn't count).

His comments on blacks are not due to the inherent inferiority of dark-skinned folk. It is due to their economic state. He's rich, they are poor. He's winning, they are losing. That's his only scorecard.

He picks on POWs as losers the same way; POWs are not a race, but he uses the same tactics. And so on... the point being that what he's doing is not racism at all. It's bullying and bigotry and chest-beating. It's ugly, and it's shameful that we as a nation rally behind it. It's extremely damaging to the psyche of our country and the individuals that make it up.

But the fundamental tool is not the inherent inferiority of a particular bloodline, and calling it racist simply misses the target. And the target is ugly and insidious enough that it must be hit accurately or it will be in vain. It resembles racism, it's ugly like racism, Trump uses it because some of his followers are already racist and he can tap that energy, and that is ugly. But there's a lot of misdirection going on, and not all of his followers are racist.

That's the thing.

His followers are willing to put up with things that resemble racism in order to accomplish certain goals. Although there may be some followers who revel in his bigotry, for some it's just collateral damage.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

ucim: While I disagree with you in a few aspects (Trump's public attack on Mexicans wasn't solely in regards to them 'taking our jobs', but that 'they are rapists' - clearly pushing a whole different set of buttons) I agree with your overall conclusion.

The big lesson I've taken away from the US election is that, while for many on the left, racism is a 'cardinal sin' - being a sort of core 'gateway sin' leading to unequal treatment in the job market, housing, education etc. - for many on the right it is but one sin amongst many.

In a sense, we as liberals are in our own bubble: We are familiar of how research shows even black police officers are quicker to pull the trigger on black suspects, how black convicts suffer much longer prison terms for the same crimes etc. so we see the harsh, insidious nature of racism in practice - how it can blight a person from cradle to grave - but the same studies of course do not make the rounds in the conservative bubble.

We might regard ourselves as 'more enlightened' in this regard but of course it doesn't win any friends to act like it.

I have become convinced that many of Trump's voters supported him not because of his racism but in spite of it - that they (mildly) disapprove of his more extremist pronouncements, but that the 'sins' on the other side of the political aisle - eg. Clinton's support of gun control - are, in their opinion, as bad or worse.

There's really no other way to explain how so many women voted for Trump, say.

Post-pussygate I was sure his support from women would drop to near zero, but it simply didn't. Does that mean lots of women are misogynist? That doesn't make much sense. They probably largely disapproved but didn't consider his words and actions to be 'capital crimes'.

If the general version is false how can a specific case be true? Your claim is that all Trump voters are a bit racist because they voted for Trump. In so far as I can determine this is true because you say so and for no other reason that you have elucidated. The premise that Trump is male therefore everyone who voted for Trump is male is false because the the premise isn't supported by the conclusion. We know KnightExempler's mother voted for Trump. And I assume mother is indicative of a female. Your conclusion may or may not be valid. But it isn't supportable as is, since because even if all the rabbits you see are white, that doesn't imply that all rabbits are white. Because you can't see all rabbits.

gmalivuk wrote:Your failure of logic is thinking this somehow implies that if instead you support someone who didn't base her campaign on racism, then you're not a bit racist.

Logic doesn't seem to apply in this discussion. But why isn't it true? I say it is. Isn't that sufficient?

gmalivuk wrote:Trump's campaign drove away people who have a problem with overt racism, but it didn't attract everyone who has no problem with overt racism

Yes I know, because you have stated so over and over again. You haven't supported that claim with anything other than your word. There isn't any polling data I am aware of that says that. No studies. Simply your insistence that it is so.

gmalivuk wrote:(To use an example I hope even CorruptUser won't complain about, everyone (yes I do mean everyone) who supported the Nazi Final Solution was anti-Semitic, but not all anti-Semites supported the Final Solution. Or to put it a different way, Nazi anti-Semitism drove away everyone in the world who wasn't anti-Semitic, but it didn't attract everyone in the world who was anti-Semitic.)

I'm not as easy going as CorruptUser. We're arguing the first case, not the second. The Clinton statement, as an argument, is a reduction to absurdity. That is, if you can make a claim without evidence than I have the same privilege. Leading to the absurd conclusion that all Clinton voters are not a bit racist. So in the second case you are arguing the absurdity. Our disagreement is over the first statement. And your assertion of "all" in it. Again as before, even if all the rabbits you see are white that doesn't imply that all rabbits are white. Because you can't see all rabbits.

I would support a position that Trump, through his utterances, supports racists and encourages them. And I believe there is evidence to support that. I support the idea that Trump might be racist given his utterances. But to be definitive I would have to see his actions rather than the shit that comes out of his mouth. What I disagree with is that all Trump voters are a little bit racist because Trump is. Your far better in formal logic than I am, so I am always reticent about engaging this way, so I have probably tripped over my dick in this case yet again. Be that as it may.

Using the word all is the path to stereotyping. I know this particular point isn't of interest to you since you aren't interested in changing minds. But I have to assume that every conversation starts from a position of having no prior assumptions of what to expect from the other person if I am trying to understand.

ucim wrote:Bigot. (And where did the term "degenerate races" come from?)*

Pardon; that was probably misleading. I meant to say what do we call someone who's using culture as a proxy to describe what they see as degenerate races (by discussing degenerate culture, instead).

ucim wrote:Yes, for two reasons. First is that it's simply the wrong word, and that impedes communication and pollutes the dictionary. Second and most important is that the reason people (initially) use the word is to disingenuously scoop up its mojo. This is a deliberate attempt to substitute angry chest-beating and emotional appeal for reasoned discussion and analysis.

Okay, but you understand that I'm not doing that, right? If you believe in the purity of definitions, then you probably agree that just because others use the word for its emotional content doesn't imply I shouldn't use it when I think it's the right word.

Which really just leaves us with the first reason: You don't think the word fits. Why not? Because Trump hasn't talked about degenerate races? Wouldn't that be a dead giveaway, though? If racist has a lot of negative impact, but you still want the racist vote, wouldn't it make sense to say racist things in a way that allows for plausible deniability? And if that's the case, is it really wrong to still call those statements racist?

This is partly why I don't like calling *people* racist; you end up locked in a discussion over what a person must do to qualify. It's much easier to have a conversation about racist statements, beliefs, and behaviors: Stating that a judge can't handle a case because he's Mexican is a pretty racist statement. For a lot of complex reasons -- it treats Mexicans like a monolith (simplifying and flattening what is actually a pretty diverse racial identity); it mischaracterizes someone as a Mexican (the judge himself was born in America and probably doesn't even consider himself Mexican); it behaves as if Mexicans are somehow incapable of acting as impartial judges -- etc.

Racist statements flatten the complex to the simple. Jewish people aren't a complex set of cultural, religious, and genealogical identities; they're just a race. Muslims, too. They're monoliths. It's beliefs like these -- statements like these -- which are fundamentally racist. Because one of the defining characteristics of racism is that it doesn't really care if you're actually part of a race; it only cares about simplifying you down to a set of negative traits.

I mean, I realize it's frustrating to have a word be "fuzzy" like this, but the reason it's so fuzzy is because it's trying to describe fuzzy thinking -- "racist" as a term is vague and fuzzy only in so much that racism itself is vague and fuzzy. Trying to limit it to only occasions where someone qualifies that yes, they are being *literally* racist -- that neuters our ability to correctly identify racist statements and racist behaviors.

If anything, it feels like people are over-sensitive to the word "racist"; it seems like we're perpetually being asked not to use it because it hurts people's feelings? I acknowledge that imprecise use is bad, but I don't feel like it's imprecise to at least describe the things Trump has said and done as fundamentally racist. If these things don't count, when can we use the term? When we're talking about the KKK? At that point, it seems a little too late.

The Great Hippo wrote:I meant to say what do we call someone who's using culture as a proxy to describe what they see as degenerate races (by discussing degenerate culture, instead).

Given that exact scenario, the person is racist, but not because they are "using culture as a...", but because they "...see as degenerate races". It is that last part that pretty much defines racism. They are racist because of that belief, irrespective of how they mealymouth their opinion.

But, that's not what's happening with Trump.

The Great Hippo wrote:If you believe in the purity of definitions, then you probably agree that just because others use the word for its emotional content doesn't imply I shouldn't use it when I think it's the right word.

Again, strictly speaking you are correct. You shouldn't use the word because it is not the right word. I claim that your belief that it is the right word is incorrect.

Given that it is the incorrect word, it is disingenuous to use it anyway to capture its mojo. It leads people (like The Great Hippo ) to focus on the wrong problem, and to see things that aren't there, but merely look like something that is.

Because the pattern fits something else. It's a dangerous pattern he has, and it's a disservice to misidentify it.

The Great Hippo wrote:Racist statements flatten the complex to the simple.

Yes, but this is not uniquely true of racism. Bigoted statements do the same thing - in fact, this is pretty much the whole point of bigotry. Racism is just a specific kind of bigotry. Using "racist" claims precision that isn't there. It has nothing to do with hurting people's feelings.

The Great Hippo wrote:I mean, I realize it's frustrating to have a word be "fuzzy" like this...

No, the word isn't fuzzy at all. Using the very specific word when you mean a fuzzy concept is what's incorrect, even moreso when there's a perfectly good (and appropriately fuzzy, and pretty much equally ugly) word for this concept: Bigot.

And yes, Trump has said some actual racist things (Mexican judge, Mexicans are all rapists), but the pattern is not one of racism, it's one of belligerant bigotry. And it's not even the terrible danger of a Trump presidency. That is Trump's continuing attack on the US institution of democracy. If he succeeds in getting people to believe that "we no longer live in a democracy" (I have family that already believe that), it will be so much easier for him to call off elections in the crisis of 2020, and rise to become our Supreme Leader.

If that happens, the whole thing about racism will be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Because things can be true in a few specific cases without being true in general. Is this seriously something you don't understand?

The premise that Trump is male therefore everyone who voted for Trump is male is false because the the premise isn't supported by the conclusion.

That's not how premises and conclusions work, but in any case, I already clarified that "Trump is racist therefore everyone who voted for Trump is racist" is not the extent of my statement. It's not merely the fact that he's racist, but that he based his campaign on racism, that I think indicates racism in his supporters.

gmalivuk wrote:Your failure of logic is thinking this somehow implies that if instead you support someone who didn't base her campaign on racism, then you're not a bit racist.

Logic doesn't seem to apply in this discussion.

Not to your part in it, evidently.

gmalivuk wrote:Trump's campaign drove away people who have a problem with overt racism, but it didn't attract everyone who has no problem with overt racism

Yes I know, because you have stated so over and over again. You haven't supported that claim with anything other than your word. There isn't any polling data I am aware of that says that. No studies. Simply your insistence that it is so.

My insistence on which part? There is polling data showing a significantly higher rate of believing overtly racist stereotypes among Trump voters. Do you take issue with my claim that driving away all non-racists doesn't imply attracting all racists? Because that's the logical implication you seem to keep sticking to, despite its complete lack of validity.

What I disagree with is that all Trump voters are a little bit racist because Trump is.

I also disagree with this. As I said above and in at least one other post, "Trump is racist" is not the extent of the premise from which I draw the conclusion, "Trump voters are racist".

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

ucim wrote:And yes, Trump has said some actual racist things (Mexican judge, Mexicans are all rapists), but the pattern is not one of racism, it's one of belligerant bigotry.

I agree with this statement; I don't think Trump is a literal racist (as in I don't think he has any particular beliefs regarding a hierarchy of races); I just think he expresses a lot of racist sentiments. I think when people say "Trump is a racist", they usually mean he's just a guy who has done some seriously racist stuff (see the federal investigations into him refusing to take black tenants a while back, for example) and said a lot of obviously racist things.

At this point, I'm still not really sure what we're disagreeing over? It sounds like you don't like labeling Trump a racist, because we don't know if he has any literal racist beliefs; he just says and does racist things. That's fine, I don't think it's particularly important that we call him a racist (and I can see how it's potentially confusing if you believe racism is a set of concrete beliefs regarding genetics). But if you agree that he does and says a lot of pretty racist things, you're not really disagreeing with me? You're just complaining because some people take "racist" to mean "someone who says and does lots of racist things".

Also, I understand your concern with the political ramifications of Trump's presidency, but -- again, I'm not talking about racism because I think it will get Trump out voted; I'm talking about it because I think it's the right word.

You're free to worry over the political consequences a word may carry (and I think that's a legitimate concern to have!), but for the purposes of this discussion, I'm more interested in the actual useage of the word itself.

And, as I've mentioned many times and as enumerated more specifically in the Atlantic article I quoted, there are ramifications (political and otherwise) of using the word "racist" other than the direct impact it has on the opinions of white bigotts. Not all of those ramifications are negative, and not all of them involve the white bigots ucim and others seem intent on focusing all their attention on.

For one thing, those are not the people in the most immediate danger from the results of this election. (This is the 2016 election thread, after all. Not the 2018 or 2020 election thread.) So I'm far less concerned with coddling their feelings than I am with protecting the targets of their bigotry.

For another, I'm not currently talking to those white bigots, unless y'all consider yourselves such. I'm discussing the election on a webcomic forum. Even if this were a political strategizing session for 2018, I wouldn't talk to my fellow strategists the same way I would talk to my opponents or the general public or white bigots in particular.

Insisting that we avoid language here because it won't persuade people who aren't here is pointless at best, actively counterproductive at worst.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

sardia wrote:You got an older guy to actually read a historical article? And he believed an article on the internet?

It's all about how. This ain't like forwarding a link to someone. The guy's seeking out the article himself, for support. Makes a huge difference. He's seeking information, not responding to an attack.

Zamfir wrote:I don't believe this dilution thing. Racism is a very powerful word, without any sign of getting diluted. People get mighty upset by the word, and we get all this edge-case lawyering about how far you can go exactly before it's racism. Because the word has power.

Of course, this might change at some point in future. But if we tiptoe around the word today to preserve it for tomorrow, we're like those people who keep their best china unused and eat from cheap plates instead.

How, precisely, does it become diluted? When would you know it has?

When people, say, ignore it when deciding who to vote in as president? Is that a sign that it's lost power?

Preserving it isn't the same as not using it ever. It means reserving it for the worst cases. People use the word "sublime", and it means pretty much what it used to. Awesome became adopted for everything, and now the regular meaning rarely even comes to mind unless you actually think about the etymology. The generic meaning has outstripped the specific one in actual use, and the word, while still used, is no longer the same.

Look at, say, Cinema Sins, a reasonably popular youtube channel, who has adopted the habit of saying "that's racist" for every clearly awful 'ism. Your big accusation has become a punchline.

gmalivuk wrote:

CorruptUser wrote:calling everyone else racist in order to shut down conversation when it doesn't go our way

Acknowledging that a vote for Trump is racist is not the same thing as calling everyone else racist in order to shut down conversation.

As I've said repeatedly (and it's even in my sig now, so I suppose in a way I've retroactively said it about 25,000 times), saying someone is racist can be useful and true even if it isn't an attempt to convince that person to be otherwise.

We're not Trump voters, here. We're the onlookers. Your strategy is not convincing us of your rightness. It's not convincing even to a decent number of people inside the liberal echo chamber, and has long since ceased being anything but a joke to those outside it.

If you hang out in right circles, you will find similar debates around the virtue of calling out things as socialist. It's like they're blind, and utterly do not realize that labeling everything socialist merely makes them a laughingstock to those with different views. This is literally exactly the same thing.

Is it because the word "racism" has become diluted that people voted for Trump despite his racism-based campaign, or is it because those people aren't bothered by the racism itself?

The people here I'm not persuading include a lot of the same people who I distinctly remember denying that racism played a role in Darren Wilson's murder of Mike Brown, or the other hundreds of subsequent instances of police killing unarmed black people. You are not the liberal echochamber, you are the white moderates in persistent denial of the extent of white supremacy in our culture.

I still think there are parallels with the climate change debate. There are denialists who won't ever be convinced that anthropogenic climate change is real, and there are others who accept that it's real but who won't ever be convinced to change their behavior, and there are some who might be persuadable if you hold their hands through the overwhelming evidence.

The statement, "Climate change is happening and it's largely a consequence of human activity," won't convince any of those people. But it's still a true statement, and it's a truth that we have to acknowledge if we're ever to make any progress enacting changes that might help in the future.

People denied that segregation and Jim Crow were "truly racist", too, because after all they weren't lynchings or anything overt like that.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

I am honestly doubtful of the premise that accusing someone of racism was ever something that could have turned most people away from Trump and has just become weak. Sure people are bothered by being called one but that I think that is more because a) the word implies that their stance isn't logical and it is a word never used as a neutral description and more importantly b) they know significant parts of the population consider it something negative. But that is not the same as people going "Oh he is racist, then I can't vote for him of course."

gmalivuk wrote:Is it because the word "racism" has become diluted that people voted for Trump despite his racism-based campaign, or is it because those people aren't bothered by the racism itself?

Some of each, probably.

I mean, even if it WAS universally the last one, that's one hell of a denouncement of your strategy of fixing racism via shaming.

The people here I'm not persuading include a lot of the same people who I distinctly remember denying that racism played a role in Darren Wilson's murder of Mike Brown, or the other hundreds of subsequent instances of police killing unarmed black people. You are not the liberal echochamber, you are the white moderates in persistent denial of the extent of white supremacy in our culture.

I will cheerfully admit that police kill people without due process fairly often, and that minorities are at a significantly higher risk of this, even if everything else is controlled for. I've long been a participant in the police thread, and while I may or may not agree with you on a given particular instance, there really wasn't a whole lot of disagreement among the forum at large as to the overall existence of this. Pretty much everyone agrees that it's a thing, and that it's a problem.

I still think there are parallels with the climate change debate. There are denialists who won't ever be convinced that anthropogenic climate change is real, and there are others who accept that it's real but who won't ever be convinced to change their behavior, and there are some who might be persuadable if you hold their hands through the overwhelming evidence.

It's real. I also have essentially zero faith that shaming people will result in much change. I think we're going to burn all the oil we have access to regardless. However, some people will feel very self righteous about yelling at others in the meantime, despite not actually doing anything of consequence to fix it.

PeteP wrote:I am honestly doubtful of the premise that accusing someone of racism was ever something that could have turned most people away from Trump and has just become weak. Sure people are bothered by being called one but that I think that is more because a) the word implies that their stance isn't logical and it is a word never used as a neutral description and more importantly b) they know significant parts of the population consider it something negative. But that is not the same as people going "Oh he is racist, then I can't vote for him of course."

The accusing, no, that was never going to work. Accusations are a really terrible way to persuade people to your side. They often solidify people in opposition.

But people can themselves grow uncomfortable with a candidate, or people advocating terrible things.

Put another way, I believe that roughly zero memes on facebook, comparing people to Hitler, have any effect, save for encouraging conflict and factionalism. I believe that people recognizing, on their own, uncomfortable parallels to other people has power, though. Trump's greatest weakness was himself. The things that most affected him negatively were his *own* words, not those of his adversary.

gmalivuk wrote:Is it because the word "racism" has become diluted that people voted for Trump despite his racism-based campaign, or is it because those people aren't bothered by the racism itself?

What about the people who were bothered by the racism, but not enough to keep them from voting for Trump. Such as those who view other aspects of Trump's (or the GOP in general's) platform as being better for them. Is voting for someone in spite of their racism (rather than because of it) sufficient for you to be labeled a racist yourself? Should we be calling all those voters misogynists too? Homophobes? I mean should anyone who votes Republican be called those things, regardless of who was running? Should we label those who vote for the democrats socialists? Where does that line get drawn?

gmalivuk wrote:Is it because the word "racism" has become diluted that people voted for Trump despite his racism-based campaign, or is it because those people aren't bothered by the racism itself?

The people here I'm not persuading include a lot of the same people who I distinctly remember denying that racism played a role in Darren Wilson's murder of Mike Brown, or the other hundreds of subsequent instances of police killing unarmed black people. You are not the liberal echochamber, you are the white moderates in persistent denial of the extent of white supremacy in our culture.

Are you using this as an example of the term "racism" being diluted?

Mike Brown assaulted a police officer and was shot in the process. There are plenty of examples of police shooting unarmed black people that demonstrate racism; this really isn't one of them. While it's tragic that a young man lost his life; the reality is that this was a young man who had just committed strong-arm robbery, was correctly identified by a police officer, and who violently attacked the officer upon being questioned, including trying to take the officers gun. The shooting was investigated by local, state, and federal authorities, and found to be a legitimate self-defense shoot.

The initial narrative, that Brown was shot in the back and/or that he had his hands up; was revealed to be completely false. Sadly, the media and many people in government went with that narrative anyway, and continued with that narrative even after it was shown to be false; and that is largely what led to the violence and civil unrest that followed. And, apparently, there are still people who can't let that narrative go despite the mountains of physical evidence, as well as witness testimony, that refute it.

To address your original point, yes - this sort of thing does dilute the word "racism" and make it less meaningful. Because when people see the actual facts of the case, but hear it continue to be described as a racially motivated shooting, it makes many of them more skeptical towards actual, legitimate examples of racially motivated shootings.

I don't know if it's terribly important to label people who support racist campaigns racists themselves; I also don't think anyone here is rushing to do so? You can certainly just not care enough about racism to oppose racist policies (and in doing so, end up indirectly supporting those policies).

I think the over all effect is pretty much the same; whether we support platforms built on racism because they're racist, or despite their racism -- we're still supporting racist platforms. Whether or not we are therefore racist seems kind of irrelevant.

cphite wrote:Mike Brown assaulted a police officer and was shot in the process.

This and the rest of your post is deeply over simplified and even (hopefully unintentionally!) misleading. I'm not sure how to address it. How familiar are you with the actual case? For example, even the police report claims he wasn't shot fatally during the assault, but after he tried to run away (he turned back around and the officer reported he felt as if he was about to attack him again).

I don't think going over the details of this case here would be super productive, but I also feel like just letting your description of this event stand unchallenged would be incredibly unfair. Maybe we can just all agree it's way more complicated than what you're describing and leave it at that?

gmalivuk wrote:Is it because the word "racism" has become diluted that people voted for Trump despite his racism-based campaign, or is it because those people aren't bothered by the racism itself?

What about the people who were bothered by the racism, but not enough to keep them from voting for Trump. Such as those who view other aspects of Trump's (or the GOP in general's) platform as being better for them. Is voting for someone in spite of their racism (rather than because of it) sufficient for you to be labeled a racist yourself? Should we be calling all those voters misogynists too? Homophobes? I mean should anyone who votes Republican be called those things, regardless of who was running? Should we label those who vote for the democrats socialists? Where does that line get drawn?

I wanted to comment on this a little. No, I would not necessarily call people racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. because they voted for Trump despite his bigotry. In some cases, I find people who voted for Trump despite all this to be far worse than that.

I remember hearing an interview with a regional Trump campaign head on NPR shortly before the election, but after the Access Hollywood bus video. He was asked about Trump's comments on women and very clearly stated that such language was "unacceptable", and that just hit me as especially bad, for some reason. "Unacceptable"? That's the very definition of acceptable; you're going to vote for him despite repeated racist and sexist remarks, proving to you that he is what he showed you to be, and you're accepting that to get something you want.

That in itself might be fine, if you're willing to say "Yes, Trump's probably going to try to put Muslims in concentration camps, but he got me a shiny new minimum-wage job, so I don't care about the rest." That doesn't mean you're a racist. That means you're a terrible person, but maybe not a racist. (Maybe.)

But the worst are those people who want to believe they're not racist, they're not sexist, they're not homophobic, etc., and they're not terrible people. They're the ones telling themselves "This is something he shouldn't say, and it's indicative of a deep-seated and horrific bigotry, and what would I think if he grabbed my daughter or my sister by the pussy? Oh, but what if he can bring back steel jobs to Pennsylvania or mining jobs to West Virginia? Well, maybe he didn't really mean it; it's locker-room talk, right? I may have never been in a locker room where anyone said anything so detestable, but he's in a different class of locker room, am I right? I've been lauding him for months for being someone who TELLS IT LIKE IT IS, except here, I choose to believe he's just telling a joke here, or he's just saying stuff to sound big" or whatever bullshit they have to invent to justify "I got mine, fuck the rest of you" while pretending to be good people. If you're one of these people, I won't call you a racist. Clearly, you may be sensitive to race or gender issues, and you may tell yourself that these issues are really really important, but your vote tells the truth: it's just not important enough. In that, you're worse. Trump let you know exactly who he is, and you had to do some truly Olympic mental gymnastics to justify him to yourself.

Apologies; I missed the pre-election rancor and just came back to the board recently. This conversation just touched something in me that is really fucking angry at these people. I will go back into seclusion now.

To be fair, if it's a literal choice between voting for a racist, misogynistic, xenophobic candidate -- or going bankrupt and having to live on the streets -- *I'm* not going to get pissy at the people who voted for bigotry.

Well, if I literally had that choice, I'd probably vote for homelessness and then kill myself anyway. But I'm depressed already, so ... not the best person to vote on that.

Oh, I beg pardon; I agree with your sentiment, I just wanted to qualify it a little? I don't think anyone is facing that actual choice, and I don't think anyone really believes that's the choice they're facing (if they do, I think they're operating under some pretty perverse assumptions!). I definitely agree that if you feel Trump's comments are unacceptable, you really shouldn't be working to get him elected.

At a minimum, it's a really bad example. There are far more unambiguous examples of unjust police violence.

We may disagree on specific cases, but there's little disagreement here as to the existence of that trend, yes? Everyone's on board with that. Pick whichever specific examples you feel are good, there's...so very many to choose from. Generally speaking, people here are not interested in denying the overall trend, though we'll happily argue for weeks over specific details.

I think many people want all voters to be single issue voters with regards to racism, and are very disappointed that this is not the case.

The Great Hippo wrote:Oh, I beg pardon; I agree with your sentiment, I just wanted to qualify it a little? I don't think anyone is facing that actual choice, and I don't think anyone really believes that's the choice they're facing (if they do, I think they're operating under some pretty perverse assumptions!). I definitely agree that if you feel Trump's comments are unacceptable, you really shouldn't be working to get him elected.

For the coal towns that got an anti-coal message from Clinton, and have been facing increasingly hopeless economic circumstances, and a pro-coal message from Trump, it's probably not so very different than you imagine.

I mean, yeah, actual economic salvation may not be coming, but if we're going off the words said for everything else, the words said for economics were essentially this tradeoff.

Hippo maybe you should call out Gmalivuk as well. He dug up that carcass. Possibly you might ask him if he remembers the case as well since as far as I know the crime of murder wasn't charged much less prosecuted. Neither were any civil rights violations charged. As you say, it's complicated.

Gmal didn't provide factually incorrect details regarding the case. I also wouldn't take a lack of charges as evidence of a lack of malfeasance.

It's complicated, but I agree that both the event and the coverage surrounding it was more likely than not an expression of racism -- in one form or another. I don't think getting into why would be very helpful here, though.

cphite wrote:Mike Brown assaulted a police officer and was shot in the process.

This and the rest of your post is deeply over simplified and even (hopefully unintentionally!) misleading. I'm not sure how to address it. How familiar are you with the actual case? For example, even the police report claims he wasn't shot fatally during the assault, but after he tried to run away (he turned back around and the officer reported he felt as if he was about to attack him again).

I didn't include every detail, but what I posted was adequate to make the point.

- He had just robbed a store.

- He was identified - correctly - as being the person who robbed the store.

- He assaulted a police officer.

- He attempted to flee and then turned around and moved towards the officer, and was subsequently shot.

All of which is consistent with a self-defense shooting; and conforms to how officers are trained to deal with a violent suspect. It's a terrible shame that it happened, but it isn't an example of racism. It is example of what can happen when you assault a police officer.

None of this implies that there isn't systemic racism in our justice system; but this specific case isn't an example of it.

I don't think going over the details of this case here would be super productive, but I also feel like just letting your description of this event stand unchallenged would be incredibly unfair. Maybe we can just all agree it's way more complicated than what you're describing and leave it at that?

We can go over as many details as you like and it doesn't change the conclusion that this was a valid self-defense shooting. At the end of the day, it really isn't so complicated: He attacked an armed officer of the law and tried to go for the officers gun; and then, after starting to flee, turned back and moved towards the officer. It was legitimate self-defense at that point for the officer to use lethal force. This was the conclusion of three levels of law enforcement, including a federal task force that was under political pressure to find guilt.

If you feel compelled to take issue with my description, that's fair. I don't agree, but I can respect it.

cphite wrote:I didn't include every detail, but what I posted was adequate to make the point.

What you posted was factually incorrect in several instances; it didn't leave out details so much as misrepresent them.

*sigh*, I guess we're doing this.

What did he misrepresent?

It's not murder from the standpoint of the law. Available evidence does not indicate that it meets the requirements of murder. It's kinda crappy, but end of day, it's a really bad example for a real problem.

cphite wrote:We can go over as many details as you like and it doesn't change the conclusion that this was a valid self-defense shooting. At the end of the day, it really isn't so complicated

Maybe it was a valid self defense shooting. I'm not in a position to really say. However, the fact that you don't think it's even complicated...?

It does in fact match similar outcomes that are declared valid self defense shootings elsewhere. He's not wrong on that. It's merely a simple restatement of what's known given the available information. Gm's statement of murder does *not* match the known legal standing of it. In short, cphite's statements are factual, that statement of gmalivuk's was not.

If you require a standard for not-racist that one disagree with the legal system, and describe some sort of belief in a conspiracy or something to convict this guy in particular....you might be just a little bit wrapped up in specifics. From what we know, this was obviously a legitimate self defense claim. Yeah, maybe there's something we don't know. Maybe aliens actually came down and shot him. Speculation is not a sound basis for anything.

I mean, people could just read the pages and pages in the Police Misbehavior Thread where the whole thing was already discussed.

I simply brought it up as an example of a situation where you and others refuse to see the racism, and you've gone ahead and demonstrated that point perfectly by continuing to find excuses to justify first the killing and then the grand jury debacle.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

We disagree with you with regards to it being racism. I can totally see the same outcome happening with a white person shot. Similar cases happen occasionally, and are not notable. I'm not sure how recognizing this connects with racism though. It's just a simple fact.

Overall trends of shootings ARE notable, and there are many pretty clear examples of racism, both individually and institutionally. You can get widespread support by focusing on the actual, horrible fuckups that are out there...but you want to focus on the thing the moderates even disagree with you on? Why?

Seems like a straight up strategy of self sabotage. The case with evidence? That isn't enough. If they're not on board for the case WITHOUT it, they're not truly allies. This sort of strategy mirrors things like how people reacted to many of the various accusations against Trump. Forget proof, number of accusations should be enough, right?

Any ideology that avoids facts is a bad one. It isn't seeking truth at all.

The consent decree agreed to by the Ferguson city council pretty much closed the book. It placed the blame where the blame belonged. On the people who were in a position to do something about it. And it will do more to improve the Ferguson PD then a criminal prosecution. Which didn't happen. It might be an injustice but multiple jurisdictions said it wasn't a crime. It is much easier to show statistically that a department has a problem. There is evidence in terms of the record of police transactions. It's much more difficult to show that one man is a racist, and you can't convict a man with something you can't prove. What the consent decree will hopefully do is make sure it doesn't happen again. And that is as good as it is ever likely to be. Am I misstating the situation. What more can be done in that instance?

Tyndmyr there really isn't any doubt that racism played a part in what happened. You just can't show that the officer was racist or that he killed because he was.

gmalivuk wrote:I simply brought it up as an example of a situation where you and others refuse to see the racism, and you've gone ahead and demonstrated that point perfectly by continuing to find excuses to justify first the killing and then the grand jury debacle.

I don't need to find excuses to justify it; three levels of law enforcement and a grand jury already justified it. They concluded that it was legitimate self-defense. All of the publicly available evidence and eyewitness testimony points to legitimate self-defense.

I'm going to disagree that all Trump supporters are racist assuming that the Trump campaign was racist in its nature.

1) There is no evidence that Trump supporters actually pay attention the campaign. Outside of the "build the wall" I think you will find that his supports don't have any idea what he has promised to do other than "make America great again" which isn't explicitly racist. (it might be implicitly racist for reasons a Trump supporter would never bother to read about). Anecdotally, my entire family are lifelong Republicans and they didn't watch a single debate and can't name an policy proposals other than the wall. This doesn't mean they aren't racist, but the point is that if you support a candidate and don't actually follow the election its hard to claim they support X because of Y policy if they can't even name Y.

2) Racism has been overused. Romney is racist, taxes are racist, using pronouns is racist.... its the boy who cried wolf. So living in their bubbles of Fox news and Breitbart Conservatives don't pay attention to claims of racism because they seem to be effectively immune to the label.

3) White non-educated workers in 3 States won Trump the Presidency and it has nothing to do with his polices, campaign, or racist comments. They voted for him because their jobs left 20 years ago, have never returned, and they decided to try something different. (While Dem's did convince them Romney didn't care which prevented those voters from switching, that same level of attack was never leveled against Trump with the focus being on his qualifications and temperment while he was focused on jobs jobs jobs ) The motivation was economic relief after decades of decline, not racism.